Landmarks and Old Charges
Written by Bro. Daniel Doron
The
term "Landmarks" is well known to all brethren, and we know we have
undertaken to keep them, yet what they really are is not always as clear.
Moreover, these Landmarks are often connected to the ‘Charges’. My aim here is
to clarify these terms and draw distinct lines between three terms.
1. 'Old Charges' is the name given to certain
manuscripts having more or less the same contents. It is a term which is used
to characterize 113 manuscripts, the oldest of which is "Regius" dated 1390. These manuscripts contain 'Charges'
in the sense of rules which all Masons are obliged to keep. Part of these
Charges are called Particular” and are concerned with
the operative building craft and with the regulation concerning the craftsmen.
The others have to do with morality and moral behavior These
are the charges “in general”. The
2. Antient
Charges & Regulations have nothing to do with the
‘Old Charges’. They are a set of 15 regulations which appear in the first pages
of the Book of Constitutions of the UGLE. Though they are said to be Summary of
the…" they are the only ones. They are not a summary of any other set.
Every Master-Elect has to promise to keep them before he is obligated as WM.
3. Landmarks are basic principles of
Freemasonry, similar to axioms in mathematics. Basically they are boundary
lines or marks between what is inside the boundaries of Freemasonry and what is
outside of them.
It should be stressed that boundary lines, or border marks, have
in all ages been regarded by men as most important and zealously kept. In the
Bible they are regarded as sacred. In Deuteronomy 27,17
we find: "Cursed be he that removeth his
neighbor's landmark". Similar references can be found in Proverbs 22,28
and in Job 24,2. We should remember that such boundaries always imply that all
recognize them as such.
In
Masonic literature, there are many efforts to deal with the Landmarks of our
Craft and it is generally agreed that the definition of what is a Landmark is
not easy. In order to better understand the difficulties let us use some
examples:
It
is obligatory that every Brother believes in the Great Architect of the
Universe and that there must be an open VSL on the Altar when a lodge is at
work. These are two of our Landmarks. They are not included in the Old
Charges or in the Antient Charges and Regulations. On
the other hand, recognizing only three degrees of EA, FC and MM and the
Installation ceremony of a WM is not a Landmark but part of the Antient Charges and Regulations.
According
to William Preston, Landmarks are boundaries set up in order to block all
innovations. This is expressed well in the 11th regulation, namely:
"You admit that it is not in the power of any Man or Body of Men to
make innovations in the body of Masonry"
John
S. Simons defined Landmarks(1) in a comprehensive way as follows:
"We assume those principles of action to be landmarks which have
existed from time immemorial, whether in the written or unwritten law: which
are identified with the form and essence of the society: which the great
majority agree, cannot be changed,
and which every mason is bound to maintain intact under the most solemn and
inviolable sanctions".
It
is quite clear that this definition includes three necessary elements which
define a Landmark as such:
1. It exists from time immemorial,
2. It expresses the form and essence of
the Craft,
3. It is agreed that it can never be
changed.
More
often than not, when Landmarks are discussed, only two of these three elements
are mentioned, namely that they are 'from time immemorial' (ancient) and that
they cannot be changed. Very often, any attempt to change even a trifle is met
with criticism that it is against our Landmarks. In my view, the most important
element is that a Landmark must express the form and essence of the
Masonic body. Furthermore, the weakest element in this definition is the third
part: what does it mean "agreed that it can never be changed"? Agreed
by whom? When? And if it will be agreed by all to change a Landmark, will it
stop to express the essence of Freemasonry? It is almost like saying: a
Landmark is a Landmark because we say so. Is this a definition? It seems to be
generally accepted that not only did Landmarks set borders, but that they were
recognized as such; they were considered as legitimate. One should realize, that in such a case if there is a general consent
of all concerned, these borders may be changed. Indeed, the original phrasing
of this clause included: "…without the consent first obtained of …Grand
Lodge". This final part was omitted after the UGLE was formed in 1823(2).
This was a significant change from an adjustable set of Landmarks to a full and
final canonization. Let me add that the Constitution of the GL of Connecticut
still has the exact original phrasing after having changed the its’ list of 15
Landmarks in 1990 !
In
his book "Speculative Masonry"(3), A.S. Macbride
defined our Landmarks as "certain established usages and customs,
occupying the position which usage and custom do in a community" namely,
similar to 'common law' in a political system. These Landmarks are similar to
civil laws but they differ in one respect: they were adopted by a Grand Lodge.
At the same time, it should be pointed out that not every usage or custom is a
Landmark; There must exist an additional condition: it
has to serve as a border between what is within the boundaries of the Craft and
what is outside these boundaries. Only such usages can become Landmarks.
In other words: the Landmarks of Freemasonry are established usages and customs
which serve as boundaries both inwards as well as outwards of a Masonic
organization. If we examine this definition closely, it will be apparent that
it contains a goal; not only boundaries but such that conform to the
goals of Speculative Freemasonry.
It seems to me that we should remember that landmarks have a
function as well. That they should not only freeze any possibility of change,
but also serve as the dividing line between what is within our borders and what
is outside of them. For instance: Belief in TGOTU and the need to have an open
VSL in lodge when working are considered so fundamental, that they distinguish
us from what is known as Grand Lodges belonging to the stream of "Grand Orient". On the other hand,
"Men Only" is also a Landmark but I wonder if it expresses the very
essence of our moral principles. As a matter of fact, feminine Grand Lodges
exist in
It
seems to me that the need to set Landmarks supports the “Transition Theory” at
least partly. When operative lodges started to accept non-operative Masons, and
the building of a spiritual and moral temple became the central target, there
arose the need to set agreed-upon boundaries. In other words: only Landmarks
which serve the goals of speculative Masons were chosen from among the usages
and customs already existing in the (operative) lodges. Just as the need of a
lodge for the builders, before actual building was started, so do we need a set
of rules before a human temple is erected for the building of a spiritual
temple; For shaping the human rough ashlars in
accordance with our moral principles.
According
to Macbride, the Landmarks listed in Dermot's 'Ahiman Rezon' (1756) about a
hundred years before Mackey's Encyclopaedia was
published, include several which do not conform with the typical goals of
Landmarks as defined by Simons above. So did others in their lists of
Landmarks, some of which were new inventions and not existing usages and
customs.
When
we examine the twenty-five Landmarks of Mackey, it becomes clear, which
Landmarks express the quintessence of Freemasonry and which express structural
aspects only. If we accept Simons's definition of
Landmarks, it is quite obvious that those Landmarks that deal only with Grand
Master and Grand Lodge cannot be "from time immemorial". After all,
these could not exist before 1717. Furthermore, they have nothing to do with 'a
system of Morality'. The same applies to any Landmark concerning the third
degree. Although the Hiramic legend is very old, the
tri-gradal system was created only around 1730.
As
B.E. Jones rightly pointed out in his "Freemason's Guide & Compendium"(4), although every Freemason has to observe the Landmarks, there is no authoritative definition of what is a Landmark, nor are they named in many Grand Lodge Constitutions, ours included. Masonic writers often quote Mackey's list of 25 Landmarks, which are fully listed by Jones. Here they are, greatly abbreviated:
1.
Modes of recognitions.
2.
The division of symbolic masonry into three
degrees.
3.
The legend of the Third Degree constituting
the essence and identity of Masonry.
4.
Government of the fraternity by an elected
Grand Master.
5-8 The
prerogative of the GM to (a) preside over every assembly, (b) to grant dispensations
for conferral of degrees and (d) holding irregular meetings. (e) to make masons at sight.
9. The
necessity for masons to congregate in lodges.
10. The
government of a lodge by a Master and two Wardens.
11. The
necessity of a lodge to be duly tyled.
12-14 The
right of every mason (a) to be represented in every meeting. (b)to appeal to GL
against a decision of his lodge (c) to visit every regular lodge.
15.
No unknown visitor to enter without
examination.
16.
No lodge to interfere with the business
of another lodge or give degree to members of other lodges.
17.
Every mason is amenable to laws &
regulations of the Masonic jurisdiction in which he resides.
18.
A candidate to be male, unmutilated, free-born and of mature age.
19-20
Belief in God as the GAOTU and in
resurrection to a future life.
21.
An open VSL open in a lodge when at work.
22.
Thwe equality of all masons.
23.
Secrecy.
24. The foundation of Speculative
Science upon an operative art and the symbolic use and explanation of the tems for the purposes of religious and moral teaching.
25.
That thease landmarks can never ce changed.
When
we examine Mackey's Landmarks, we can discern between four groups:
a. Those concerning the fraternity and
the essence of the Craft: §§. 1-3, 9,11, 18-24
b. Those concerning the Grand Master and
his rights: §§. 4-8
c. Those concerning the rights of a
Brother: §§. 12-15, 17
d. Those concerning the duties of a
lodge, including inter-relations between lodges: §§. 10, 16.
In
my opinion, the last Landmark can hardly be regarded as a Landmark at all,
since all it stipulates is that these Landmarks can never be changed. Certainly
not when we know the self same Landmark was changed in 1823.
All
Landmarks concerning the Grand Master and Grand Lodge are obviously not 'from
time immemorial' and have nothing to do with Freemasonry being 'a peculiar
system of Morality'. The same goes to the last group above, since 'Private
Lodges' existed well after 1717, so they too are not ancient.
Roscoe
Pound listed only seven Landmarks, which in my opinion fully conform to
Simons's definition of Landmarks. These are:
1. Belief in TGAOTU.
2. Belief in resurrection and life hereafter.
3. Obligation to have an open VSL in
lodge when at work.
4. The legend of the third degree.
5. Obligatory secrecy. (Modes of
Recognition)
6. The foundation of our speculative art
and its' symbolic use for the purposes of religious and moral teaching.
7. A candidate must be male, free of
birth and of age.
No
doubt, this concise list of Landmarks better relates to the absolute necessary
boundaries of our Craft. Being a jurist by profession, Pound included as
Landmarks only those which truly express the quintessence of Masonry and
excluded those which are administrative in nature. The 24th Landmark
in Mackey's list is almost identical with Pound's 6th Landmark,
which is the connection between the operative Craft and our Speculative
Freemasonry. One should note, that it does not make Speculative Freemasonry a
direct descendent of operative Masonry; it only stipulates a connection between
the two, adding a definite purpose to our moral speculations. There
are several lists of Landmarks, the shortest containing only 7 (Pound's) and
the largest nearly a hundred. The most well known is that of Mackey, containing
25 Landmarks.
It is my hope that I have helped to better understanding of the
meaning of our Landmarks.
────────────────
1 J. W. Simons,"The Principles of Masonic Jurisprudence"
2 T. O Haunch, Prestonian
Lecture for 1972, which was a study in change.
3 Published by Southern Publishers Inc,
Masonic Publications Division, 1924.,
4 Ibid, pages 334-6.